Screen for P2

[Exophase]

Plus there's pentile vs non-pentile. Galaxy Note 2 is 1280x720 non-pentile. Galaxy S4 is 1920x1080 pentile. That means the former has 2764800 sub-pixels and the latter has 4147200. But somehow people care much more about whether or not they can call it full HD or 1080p, actual physical makeup of the pixels doesn't matter nearly as much..

Here's a pretty jarring comparison: http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_galaxy_note_ii-review-811p3.php It's rather exaggerated since with higher resolutions you won't see a lot of text so thin, but it's still a good illustration.

To me this is another case where we should favor our own criteria over going with the popular flavor. On mainstream devices that are mostly used to render anti-aliased text, vector-ish icons, images like photos, and 3D games the impact from pentile is hard to notice. But that's not necessarily the case if you're spending a lot of time playing games that are scaled up from much lower resolutions, where many people want sharp transitions between pixels (as is evident by those who want the scaling filter off on Pandora).

 

[Binky]

I have no particular love for marketing gimmicks, but would support the use of a true fullHd display, with good power consumption, contrast ratios and response times

If no such thing exists, a 1280x720 (or 768, or 800) screen would be a very good choice

 

[Exophase]

But would you prefer a pentile 1920x1080 display over a non-pentile 1280x720 one (which is the current choice for AMOLED)? If you answer anything you probably answered prematurely

The other unmentioned metric is cost. Would you pay a premium for 1080p? And how much of one?

 

[Neelix]

Speaking for myself, and given my habit of using small, thin fonts on even small displays like the Pandora has,  I would prefer to avoid any display with less than 3 subpixels per pixel.      I also tend to think going full HD would be going somewhat overboard on a screen this small.   Sure it sounds good for the marketing talk,  but...   well lets split this into contexts

In terms of games:   if everything has to be scaled up in hardware from a lower resolution to get a good frame rate anyway are we really gaining anything at all?

In terms of applications:  How much information can usefully be put on the screen at this size is going to be limited mostly by readability, and ease of access to the controls.  (ie physical space rather than display resolution.) 

At some point (to my mind) the benefits of a higher resolution are going to be very much a case of diminishing returns.    

- Neelix

 

[_wb_]

I certainly want something with 3 subpixels per pixel, like in the Galaxy Note II, not PenTile like in the Galaxy Note.

I'm gonna say it one last time: Full HD is not just overkill, it is undesirable on a screen that small. I am currently working on machine with a 19" monitor (14.8x11.9") at a resolution of 1280x1024. Now take my current desktop, and imagine it on a 5.5" full HD screen. It fills about 63% of that screen (because full HD is 1920x1080), and the area is only 4.6% of what it used to be. Twenty times less. That is insanity if you want to use normal interfaces.

Consider for example icons, e.g. launchers on your desktop, icons in toolbars, favicon icons in your browser, etc. Typically these icons have a fixed size, and it will require a lot of effort to change that size in all software. The most common icon size is 32x32, although smaller ones like 24x24 or 16x16 are also quite common.

A 32x32 pixel square measures 9.4x9.4mm on the monitor I'm currently using. So almost a square centimeter. On the 4.3" Pandora screen, a 32x32 pixel square measures 3.75x3.75mm, which is small, but large enough to see enough detail with the naked eye. On a 5.5" full HD screen, a 32x32 pixel square is only 2x2mm, on a 5" full HD screen it's only 1.85x1.85cm. That is way too small to be able to use such an interface with the naked eye, and provides a way too small target to hit with a mouse or touch screen.

Imagine you have to port something like The GIMP to a hypothetical Pandora 2 with a 5" full HD screen. Instead of just a simple recompile, you now have to upscale the interface just to make it useable. Since the source images for all those icons are typically just PNGs, you'll either have to redraw them at a higher resolution, or just scale them up with some kind of interpolation, which kind of beats the purpose of having a high-res display. Either way, it's going to be a much bigger effort than just a recompile.

So even if the power consumption of a full HD screen would be the same as with a 1280x720 screen (which is unlikely), and even if the price would be the same (also unlikely), I would still argue against it. I would only consider a full HD screen if it had a better power consumption and price than the alternatives, and even then I would use it as a 960x540 screen (with the option to use it in full HD mode, an option that would probably barely be used).

 

[gdsense]

1. For the screen size, at least 600 pixels of vertical resolution is required to avoid confirmation buttons (something like 'Yes' or 'No') hidden outside of the lower boundary of the screen.

2. For office program uses other than emulation, higher screen resolution would likely to give the users enhanced experiences like:

- Better readability of document viewing (think of anti-aliased vector fonts on PDFs, double column documents like technical papers)

- More work area by decreased amount of relative area occupied by GUI components like menus, status bars, scroll bars...

- MDI jobs become possible (instead of switching between documents, we can just put them aligned together  )

And, I guess 1280 x 720 will be fine enough for 4.3~5" screen sizes for the next iteration of Pandora.

 

[slaeshjag]

Sure, more area is fine, but will you actually be able to see anything?

 

[_wb_]

1. For the screen size, at least 600 pixels of vertical resolution is required to avoid confirmation buttons (something like 'Yes' or 'No') hidden outside of the lower boundary of the screen.

Yes, at least 600 vertical pixels would be nice, also for other reasons (e.g. fitting SVGA's 800x600).

2. For office program uses other than emulation, higher screen resolution would likely to give the users enhanced experiences like:

- Better readability of document viewing (think of anti-aliased vector fonts on PDFs, double column documents like technical papers)

Yes, for any vector-based graphics, extra resolution just means better quality (and more effort needed to render it). Lots of material is not vector-based though.

- More work area by decreased amount of relative area occupied by GUI components like menus, status bars, scroll bars...

If you're going to make the GUI components tiny by using default interfaces on a 5" full HD screen, you end up with barely visible buttons and scrollbars, which are hard to click accurately even with a good stylus (e.g. the tip of the stylus would have an area that's larger than the width of a scrollbar).

- MDI jobs become possible (instead of switching between documents, we can just put them aligned together  )

It's still going to be a tiny screen though, compared to a full laptop or a big monitor. So I don't think you'll want to have several windows opened side-by-side, even if you have the resolution to do it. A full HD 5" screen is something completely different than a full HD 21" monitor.

And, I guess 1280 x 720 will be fine enough for 4.3~5" screen sizes for the next iteration of Pandora.

I would say that 1280x720 is about the largest you can go for a 5.5" screen without having to re-design the GUIs of existing desktop software. At 267ppi this is quite a bit better than the current Pandora screen (217ppi), which is already very good in terms of ppi if you ask me.

It's silly to fetish about the resolution while properties like response time (ghosting), contrast, reflexivity, power consumption are ignored. Why improve one of the properties (resolution) by a huge factor, while the other properties stay the same or even get worse? I'd say we have to try to improve all properties, and mostly the ones that are currently most lacking (response time imo).

Maybe an analogy is useful here. Suppose we could make the keyboard buttons for the Pandora 2 small enough to fit a complete standard 104-key keyboard, separate numpad and all included. Or to make the analogy more accurate - full HD is more than what most normal desktop pc monitors offer - throw in a bunch of extra keys (media buttons etc), for a total of 150 keys or so. Would you want this? You would need a toothpick to press those keys, but hey, the more keys the better, right?

No. Some extra keys would be useful, e.g. like the iCP2 has. But you still want to be able to use those keys comfortably. And there are other properties of the keyboard that maybe more urgently need to be improved besides the number of keys: maybe a better keypress-mechanism, backlit keys, extra shoulder buttons for ALT and Fn.

 

[Binky]

I'm starting to agree with _wb_ here.

I'd say the ideal resolution is 1280x768, but something similar (e.g. 1280x720 or 1280x800 would be fine too)

 

[Franko]

^ I agree.  Especially if the OP Team decides to utilize the same case for the Pandora2.  A 5.5" (diagonally measured) screen at that resolution would seem to fit nicely and provide the best options for my uses.  This screen (http://ces.cnet.com/8301-34447_1-57559886/samsung-preps-5.5-inch-flexible-phone-screen-for-ces-demo/) is "flexible" - which we wouldn't need if it's placed within the lid - but it seems ideal to me size-wise and resolution-wise.  I would hope that our GPU could output full HD though, out of an HDMI port for viewing on a larger screen.  Best of both worlds (IMO) if the OP Team is able to pull it off.  My eyes don't need full HD on a tiny screen...plus that would place a bigger burden on the GPU (and battery?) in a portable setting.

 

[xiongxioi]

I'm starting to agree with _wb_ here.

I'd say the ideal resolution is 1280x768, but something similar (e.g. 1280x720 or 1280x800 would be fine too)

Oh, Binky, I thought you would back me up, I'm so hurt.

My reason for a HD screen is for better overall clarity. I hate when texts looked pixelated and blurry. 

Another logic behind this is by the time pandora 2 starts mass production, 1080p screens are likely to only cost peanuts.

Also, what I really can not endure is: sometimes, windows on pandora's screen will not be displayed fully, as they are too big to fit. That really gets on my nerves. 

However, I'm more than ok with a sub HD screen if it can justify itself. 

 

[Binky]

Also, what I really can not endure is: sometimes, windows on pandora's screen will not be displayed fully, as they are too big to fit. That really gets on my nerves. 

. 

That's why I'd like a screen 768 or 800 pixels high - standard 1024x768 windows will fit on

 

[Neelix]

My reason for a HD screen is for better overall clarity. I hate when texts looked pixelated and blurry. 

Another logic behind this is by the time pandora 2 starts mass production, 1080p screens are likely to only cost peanuts.

Also, what I really can not endure is: sometimes, windows on pandora's screen will not be displayed fully, as they are too big to fit. That really gets on my nerves. 

Did you even read _wb_'s post?  If dialogues that don't fit on your screen get on your nerves just imagine how irritating it will be when the text in the same dialogue boxes is to small to be readable and the buttons almost impossible to press due to their minuscule size.  

Yes,  480 is too low.  By the same token however 1080 is too high,  what we need is something in the middle ground.

- Neelix

 

[Exophase]

I wouldn't assume a 1080p screen will cost peanuts any time soon either. Pandora's screen is still a very substantial part of the overall cost (~$50 IIRC) despite being something like 6+ years old. Let's say we're looking at 1 to 2 years from now (optimistic I know).. it may well be that all the common top tier and even middle tier phones are 1080p as dictated by spec war but that doesn't mean there won't still be cheaper phones using lower resolution displays. Which means savings will still exist. Look at Archos's recently announced $99 phone (http://liliputing.com/2013/04/archos-introduces-range-of-unlocked-android-smartphones-for-99-and-up.html), the thing has a 320x480 display..

 

[monstercameron]

Also, what I really can not endure is: sometimes, windows on pandora's screen will not be displayed fully, as they are too big to fit. That really gets on my nerves. 

. 

That's why I'd like a screen 768 or 800 pixels high - standard 1024x768 windows will fit on

I said 1024x768 in another thread an someone replied about horizontal space and filling in the lid...but I think 1024x768 is great...look at the display on the lg optimus vu

 

[Franko]

^  Well, both of the LG Optimus Vu's (1 & 2) screens seem to be pushing 3.5" tall, which seems a bit too much for our current lids.  The OP Team would have to use a wider case to accommodate those ones, and I'm not sure how happy people would be with a wider Pandora.  The Blackberry Z10 uses a smaller screen (4.2 inch), yet retains the same (1024x768) resolution.  It would easily fit within our current Pandora case restrictions.  Maybe somewhere in between these examples is our ideal screen.  Still looking...   ​ 

 

[monstercameron]

^  Well, both of the LG Optimus Vu's (1 & 2) screens seem to be pushing 3.5" tall, which seems a bit too much for our current lids.  The OP Team would have to use a wider case to accommodate those ones, and I'm not sure how happy people would be with a wider Pandora.  The Blackberry Z10 uses a smaller screen (4.2 inch), yet retains the same (1024x768) resolution.  It would easily fit within our current Pandora case restrictions.  Maybe somewhere in between these examples is our ideal screen.  Still looking...   ​ 

who is saying/thinking/wishing for the same case specs? such a small redesign seems trivial -from my pov-

and the z10 is 1280*768

 

[Franko]

^  Well, both of the LG Optimus Vu's (1 & 2) screens seem to be pushing 3.5" tall, which seems a bit too much for our current lids.  The OP Team would have to use a wider case to accommodate those ones, and I'm not sure how happy people would be with a wider Pandora.  The Blackberry Z10 uses a smaller screen (4.2 inch), yet retains the same (1024x768) resolution.  It would easily fit within our current Pandora case restrictions.  Maybe somewhere in between these examples is our ideal screen.  Still looking...   ​ 

who is saying/thinking/wishing for the same case specs? such a small redesign seems trivial -from my pov-

and the z10 is 1280*768

1280x768 - even better!      (mistype by me on that last post anyway).


I'm not saying that the OP Team "should" utilize the same case as we have now, on the contrary, I'd love to see a redesigned model.  A bit thinner model would make up for a slightly wider version (IMO).  It's just that the molds do apparently cost a lot of money to make, and I actually like the current size (even keyboard), so I was just looking at different options.  If the OP Team wanted to save money...they could in theory just improve three things :


1) A new PCB with improved SOC (redesign of wifi chip/location)*


2) New and improved screen (higher resolution, better contrast, etc)

3) If #2, then just the front panel/hinge part would need to be remolded.

*The newly designed PCB ports would need to align with the current casing's holes of course.  After looking at the back of my model, we'd have to decide on either a full-sized USB3.0 port OR full-sized HDMI out...(not enough holes in this case).  Maybe a mini-HDMI port could fit where the TV/URT-out currently is?  Not an ideal scenario for the next generation of Pandora, I know....but I was just brain-storming a bit and seeing what maybe the OP Team could try in the interim - to save money and deliver a faster product.  

 

[Neelix]

^  Well, both of the LG Optimus Vu's (1 & 2) screens seem to be pushing 3.5" tall, which seems a bit too much for our current lids.  The OP Team would have to use a wider case to accommodate those ones, and I'm not sure how happy people would be with a wider Pandora.  The Blackberry Z10 uses a smaller screen (4.2 inch), yet retains the same (1024x768) resolution.  It would easily fit within our current Pandora case restrictions.  Maybe somewhere in between these examples is our ideal screen.  Still looking...   ​ 

who is saying/thinking/wishing for the same case specs? such a small redesign seems trivial -from my pov-

and the z10 is 1280*768

Redesigning the case won't be the issue, I think it's just a matter of not wanting the new case to be any wider than the current one.   I have to agree with this.   If you have especially large hands you might be comfortable thumb typing on a wider unit... The current width is close to the limit of this for me, so I wouldn't want it to be any wider.

ED has also expressed that he wouldn't want to make the new unit any wider than the old one.

- Neelix

 

[Franko]

I essentially would like as big of a screen as we can fit on/into the next generation of Pandora.  With as an efficient and practical resolution as possible.  The OP Team needs to find that "sweet spot" at the right time, when they're ready.  Considering a whole lot of factors - availability, price points, size constraints, what is best for our current and future software usages...there are so many factors involved that I'm sometimes amazed that the Pandora1 ever got off of the ground in the first place.  I can really empathize with the OP Team here - it must have been agonizingly hard to get so many pieces to fall into place.  Well, I've read what's been publicly viewable on these (and other) boards for some time, but I can't wait to finally read the entire "official" story someday.    

Back on track though...768 (up to 800) pixels tall seems like a good target In my mind, considering my own software usages.  The screen should fill the entire scope of the device with as small of a bezel as we can get.  The current setup seems to waste valuable real estate around the screen - the speakers probably should find a home inside of the main case (or on the back of the display - not recommended).  If the OP Team decides to go with a Kickstarter project to fund an entirely new device, including the case?  Then I think that the OP Team should basically design the case based upon a chosen screen size that has a perceived longevity/availability.  This may be key to the next generation Pandora's success.

Make it look as well-engineered as possible.  No perceived wastage of space...at least outwardly (on the device's surfaces).  Regular consumers are more into aesthetics than ever....maybe it's a byproduct of all of the iProducts or we're just getting more superficial as a society, but nevertheless the OP Team really could move a lot more units with a redesign and another outlook on where to start.  The current Pandora (which I love) looks like it might have been designed around the PCB...maybe the next generation should be designed around a screen size?  Opinions?